On January 5, 2013, we, CRI, had communicated via email our suggestions/comments (“First Representation”) to amendments to criminal law relating to safety and security of women in response to the Public Notice. In addition to the suggestions made in our First Representation, we have received inputs from our readers, some of which we humbly wish to bring to the Committee’s notice for its consideration. We are aware that the instant supplementary representation is belated and is past the deadline. However, considering that the issue being addressed by the Committee is of grave public importance, we hope that the Committee will not let technicality come in the way of appreciation of the contents of this representation.

In our First Representation, we had humbly suggested broadening the definition of rape by treating absence of consent as the cardinal parameter by which to classify sexual offences as rape. In addition to the same, it is also our belief that the issue of sexual harassment must be addressed at a much broader level, instead of viewing it solely through the prism of rape. The spirit behind this suggestion is to discourage unwelcome sexual behaviour at the most fundamental level, which in quite a few cases ultimately ends in rape. To this end, it would help to create a calibrated framework covering sexual offences, with the levels of punishment for each offence designed to sufficiently deter the offender from contemplating escalation of his behaviour to the next level.

For instance, if an unsolicited “dirty” call or text message were to be treated as the first rung of the ladder, “naming and shaming” could be prescribed as the punishment whereby the offender’s identity and contact details are made known to the public, besides imprisonment for a period of 6 months or fine of INR 1 lakh to be paid to the victim, or both. For the offence of rape, besides considering the death penalty or a harsher and longer term of imprisonment, it would also help if the offender is made to pay an appropriate compensation which can cover the living expenses of the victim for the remainder of her life, including the living and medical expenses of her dependants. To this end, the law must provide for attachment of the offender’s assets, including benami properties, to ensure enforceability of the punishment.

As regards our proposal to treat gang-rapes, custodial rapes, rapes by public servants, rape by medical professionals, rape of the mentally or physically challenged, rape of dalit women and rapes during riots as aggravated forms of rape deserving of harsher punishments including the death penalty, we humbly seek to include rape of minors and senior citizens in the same aggravated category. With specific regard to Section 376(2)(g) which deals with gang-rape, we humbly suggest deletion of the Proviso to the provision which allows a Court to sentence the offender for a period less than 10 years for “special and adequate” reasons.

Issues which deservedly call for nuanced treatment are rape of minor by juvenile(s), and rape of adults by juvenile(s). Despite the “adult” nature of the offence in both circumstances, it is to be noted that the law, as it stands today, requires the offender to be treated as a “juvenile in conflict with the law”. The options which could be considered are either lowering the age limit of a juvenile, or creating exceptions with regard to certain offences wherein the Juvenile Justice Board is empowered to come to the conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt that the offender does not deserve to be treated as a juvenile if he is between 17 and 18 years old, having mandatory regard to the circumstances of the crime and the background of the offender. Of these two options, the latter appears to be better grounded in the absence of empirical evidence which supports reducing age limits.

With respect to the suggestion to constitute fast-track benches, a time-bound trial could go a long way in preserving the deterrence value of punishments prescribed by the Legislature. When the Supreme Court observes that suits for intellectual property infringement must be ideally decreed within 4 months from the institution of the suit, it is ironical that a similar sense of urgency is not displayed by Courts when dealing with cases relating to sexual offences. We do not for a moment suggest that an unrealistic timeframe be prescribed, for justice could be the casualty of such a measure. However, a timeframe of 1.5 years for conclusion of the trial and sentencing from the date of filing of the Complaint appeals to our sense of fairness and justice.

Finally, as regards policing and relief measures, besides the constitution of a Sexual Offences Unit which was proposed in our First Representation, the incident involving “Nirbhaya” also points to the need to do away with jurisdictional issues for sexual offences. Further, it would help if a roster of reputed physicians and trauma care experts are permanently attached to the proposed Sexual Offences Unit, with dedicated ambulance and emergency aid facilities.

With these few additional suggestions, we humbly thank the Committee for the opportunity provided to participate in this exercise of collective cogitation and sincerely hope that these well-meaning suggestions will be duly considered. We are confident that this Committee will do justice to its historic mandate and set in motion a chain of events which will ultimately ensure that no woman or child is ever subjected to the bestiality that a 23-year old Indian woman had to endure on the roads of the capital of the world’s largest democracy.

Rape Prevention and Law: Central and State
government need to understand that death for rapist is a long drawn out
process and implementation a never ending one. In order to make the
entire process tamper proof following are the suggestions: Have 24 x 7
video recording at the entry and exit and all rooms of police stations.
Recording to be controlled centralized at the commissnor office. Video
recording of the FIR and the same need
to be uploaded on police website before the complainant leaves. Better
still if the police is called to a convenient place by the complainant
for FIR. Weekly progress on case to be uploaded by police on the
complaint on their website. In case there is one or more person like
corporator, MLA MLC who have pending cases of molestation, rape, murder,
extortion, etc. then the police station need to display photo and
information about them in the police station. Instead of spending money
on birth and death anniversary ads in newspapers. govt should use same
money to publicize these law makers. Pratiba Patil pardon to rapist to
be investigated and order reversed. All session court judgement if
challenged need to be dealt on line by High Court. Only of HC feels
there is need for physical appearance then both party needs to be
called. Same should be done if matter goes to Supreme Court. In case
higher court feels that the lower court judgement was compromised then
the magistrate/judge should be removed from service for favouring the
culprits. All police officials should be rated on line within 24 hours
by the complainant for their performance by way of questionaire. The
details should go to commsioner and Chief Minister. In case of negative
report on the concerned police officer then local ACP should revert to
the commisioner within 24 hours. If the commisioner is convinced then
such police officer should be removed from service. Govt should spend
money on TV print and outdoor media about what citizens can do in case
police is not cooperating.

mallika

I am glad to see the updated memo to the Justice Verma Commission.

As long as the crime determines the ‘juvenile status’ there is no need to lower the age limit. It really does not matter. The serious problem is the Juvenile Justice Act, according to which only “juvenile act ” is applicable to juveniles. And it strictly defines the ‘juvenile’ as one who is under 18 yrs.

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all cases involving detention,
prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with
law under such other law”

The above is extremely problematic and plain unjust when the crime committed is an extremely violent crime like rape, gang rape, murder. In this incident the ‘juvenile’ criminal is utterly deprave.

mallika

The Juvenile act, as it is defined and amended in 2006 was tom tomed as a ‘Progressive Act”. It certainly is not. It fails the basic test of fairness. It is not fair for the victim to suffer for a long time and the perpetrator to go free(no jail time) for violent crimes.

This is even more problematic in India where you can get SSC, 7 pass certificates for as low as Rs 500. One has to just go to a state sports meet to see under 12 ‘kids, boys’ sporting tell tale signs of adolescence. And according to Juvenile act the ‘ Certificate’ precedes tests like bone marrow or bone ossification. And only if the certificate is not available can these tests ordered! So, I am not sure if the tests have been ordered in this case.

This JJ Act is a prime example where the victims rights are damned. Our HR wallas are unfair immoral folks who have no heart. And this ‘JJ Act of 2006’ amendment was spearheaded by Sonia led NIC.

mallika

As I was afraid the ‘juvenile’ s principal failed to show proper proof of basis of age for 7th pass certificate . Unfortunately even the bone marrow and bone density tests though scientific give a range 1-3 yrs. So, there is so much grey area here.

But, it is clear beyond a shred of doubt that this sub demon is a bestial creature. I am sure this is a hardened criminal and this is not his first crime.